Tag Archives: Walmart

Earlier this month I wrote that Walmart doesn’t help its PR efforts when the company acts in a manner that only serves to reinforce its reputation as the Simon Legree of retail. (Details here.) In this instance an Ohio store had a display in the employee break room asking for donations to help other Walmart employees that had fallen on hard times during the Thanksgiving & Christmas season.

Asking employees who earn an average of $12.83/hour to contribute to other employees is a touching testimony to the innate decency of the Walmart workforce, but it also calls up unfortunate images of the widow’s mite particularly in comparison with the wealth of the Walton family.

The column concluded with a look at Walmart’s Associates in Critical Need Trust. This is a fund that dispenses up to $1,500 to employees suffering severe financial setbacks. (This does not include a bad losing streak in connection with the Powerball lottery.)

I liked the sound of that, until I learned that once again these donations are no skin off the Walton family’s stock certificates. This trust is funded by voluntary payroll deduction, again from the $12.83/hour employees.

And that’s when problems began at the Shannon household.

My wife announced that unless the Walton family stops being so selfish (they have $144 billion in Walmart stock) and makes a major contribution to the Trust we will be boycotting Walmart. Generally I have no problem with boycotts. It’s an individual decision that uses the market to bring pressure on a merchant. No government intervention required. Colonists did it during the run up to the Revolution.

For taste and political reasons, I never darken the door of Starbucks (homosexual marriage is “part of the corporate DNA”), Caribou Coffee (Sharia–compliant finance) or Chipotle (one of the nation’s leading employers of illegals).

On the other hand I’m also cheap, so I regularly shop at Walmart, in spite of linguistic encounters with Walmart employees that graphically illustrate what retail shopping is going to be like after John Boehner decides it’s safe to grant illegals amnesty.

The wife says Target is going to be the windfall beneficiary of Shannon shopping dollars in the future. But I have mixed emotions regarding that store, too. All too often in the Sunday advertising circular the clothes younger models wear contribute to the sexualization of tweenaged shoppers. Young girls are hard enough to shop for without major retailers urging them to dress like pint–sized Kim Kardashians.

This is not a problem encountered when viewing the frumpy models in a Walmart catalog. I don’t know for certain whom it is wearing those dowdy clothes, but most of them appear to be related to Fred and Ethel Mertz. Regardless of age there are no sex symbols in a Walmart catalog.

Besides the Target food section is mostly full of do–it–yourself yogurt mixes and it is about one third the size of Walmart’s. (Although, credit where credit is due, Target does carry Malt–O–Meal.) I do hate sneaking around behind my wife’s back. The fact that my future secret assignations are with a major retail chain and not a hoochie mama is probably a commentary on the dullness of my existence, but I plan to continue to visit Walmart.

On the other hand I won’t be visiting Republican members of the Virginia House delegation. Last week I wrote about the shameful Boehner/Ryan sellout they tried to spin as a “budget deal.” (Details here.) This capitulation raises taxes (fees), increases spending and negates the sequester.

Ryan is so proud of himself. The good congressman says he’s increased Pentagon spending by $2 billion, which means all the Coffee Colonels there can go back to using the Keurig instead of making do with Nescafe. In return for all this bounty Ryan agreed to let the Democrats increase their spending by $22 billion! That’s an 11 to 1 ratio and we’re on the short side.

GOP apologists talk about future spending cuts contained in the deal, but with these big spenders the cuts always remain in the future, just over the horizon, like a mirage.

You can’t bind a future Congress to a deal made today. Heck this Congress can’t even bind itself. Who do you think negotiated the original sequester?

Now Boehner is flush with positive MSM coverage and has declared war on the TEA party. He’s tired of having Obama hand him his hat, so the great strategist turns on his base. Now maybe Karl Rove will return his phone calls.

At times like this the favorite criticism of the TEA party centers on Senate candidates. The TEA party supported candidates that lost and that cost Republicans the Senate.

Establishment Republicans never foist a loser on the electorate. Just look at the great work being done by President Romney and Senator George Allen. Not to mention that paragon of tanning, Senator Charlie Crist from Florida. All these worthies are (or were, Crist became a Democrat this year) establishment Republicans with the full support of party elders.

The TEA party is not a monolithic closed structure resistant to outside ideas — wait that sounds like Boehner’s cabal — it’s a loosely affiliated collection of like–minded conservatives and tin foil distributors. (Just kidding.)

There is no national body that selects candidates. Local groups support local candidates.

The TEA party–backed candidate lost in Missouri because establishment Republicans in that state utilize a primary system that doesn’t have a runoff if no one gets 50 percent of the vote. That’s how Todd Akin becomes your nominee with fewer than 35 percent of the vote. Akin and his gynecological theories could have never won a runoff. The TEA party candidate would not have survived the primary if Missouri Republicans ran the party like Texas Republicans.

In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell was simply mislabeled. She would have had no problem winning as a Democrat. If Patty Murray of budget deal negotiating fame can win her first race running as “a mom in tennis shoes,” O’Donnell would have had few problems as “a mom who’s not a witch.”

Country club Republicans conveniently overlook the fact that TEA party energy is responsible for Boehner sitting in the Speaker’s chair today.

This wretched budget deal has now passed the Senate where Republicans with primary opponents voted against it as a sop to people like you and me. There was never a doubt as to House passage. If you want to see how your house member voted you can check here and here.

I’m sorry to say the deal passed with every GOP member from Virginia voting ‘yes.’ These Republicans are either too timid to vote conservative or they simply aren’t conservatives.

Regardless of the reason for their failure, I’ll be happily boycotting every one of these politicians until they’re out of office. No money and no votes from the Shannon household and I urge every conservative reading this to do likewise.

Walmart is a corporation that generates strong opinion. Unions — and their wholly–owned subsidiary the Democrat Party — view Walmart as a rapacious corporation run by brutal overseers whose overriding goal is exploiting the working class.

Many Republican officeholders view Walmart as a corporation run by a bunch of cheap so–and–sos who won’t make large campaign contributions and hire refugees from the Clinton administration.

Unions hold annual protests just prior to Black Friday and attempt to convince millions of shoppers that the largest private employer in the US might have low prices, but it’s only because the corporation harvests employee organs to sell on the black market.

The protests are held nationwide and union employees, rented homeless and liberal voyeurs demand the corporation pay full–time employees a minimum of $25,000 per year. Democrat officeholders show solidarity by attempting to pick the corporation’s pocket with minimum wage laws that give government the power to tell business how much employees should be paid, without government having any responsibility for the bottom line.

It’s vote buying through extortion.

In the Nanny’s Republic of Washington, DC animosity toward Walmart was so high the city council passed a bill amusingly titled the Large Retailer Accountability Act. (I wait in vain for the Bad Leftist Ideas Accountability Act.) The bill would’ve required Walmart to pay 50 percent more than the city’s current minimum wage. In fact the amount was more than the minimum wage the DC government pays its employees!

Fortunately for Walmart shoppers, the mayor vetoed the bill.

So one might ask at a time when Walmart is viewed as a penny–pinching, soulless exploiter of the down–trodden, why would a store manager in Canton, OH arrange a crèche of plastic bins in the breakroom with a sign that read: “Please Donate Food Items Here, so Associates in Need Can Enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner.” I suppose it beats letting them dumpster dive, but the optics are bad.

When it comes time for the 2013 Bad Public Relations Ideas nominations, this will be hard to beat. Why not invite Occupy Wall Street to provide entertainment at the next stockholder’s meeting?

This only feeds the narrative of Grinch–like exploitation that the MSM, unions and Democrats work so hard to tattoo on Walmart’s corporate hide.

Even regular Walmart shoppers have mixed emotions. Just thinking about it conjures up associations with domestic drama in the parking lot, unfortunate fashion choices and dangerously high customer BMI.

Who hasn’t experienced that all too common Walmart shopping experience? You can’t find the item you want and you can’t find an employee to direct you to it. (I just assume all the on–duty workers are either manning the cash register or in back passing the hat.)

Even cemeteries have a higher ratio of employees to customers than your average Walmart store.

Which brings us back to: When there is such a cultural divide in opinion regarding your business, why do something that reinforces the negative side?

In fairness to the manager, the charity display was in the employees–only section and not outside next to the Salvation Army kettle, but regardless of location once the media becomes aware the damage is done.

And sure enough, anti–Walmart organizer Norma Mills, quoted on Cleveland.com, observes, “That Walmart would have the audacity to ask low-wage workers to donate food to other low-wage workers — to me, it is a moral outrage.”

When you compare this to Walmart’s profit in 2012, $17 billion, and the net worth of the Walton family, $144 billion, even the most dedicated shopper can’t help but wonder why the company can’t toss a turkey leg to deserving employees.

Unfortunately, the majority of that profit has been used in recent years to buy back Walmart stock, which is essentially financial onanism that creates nothing and only serves to enhance the value of stock the Walton family owns.

The WaPost had a story about a woman and her daughter who were struggling and homeless much of the time. The Post, as usual, ignores the choice the woman made that created the problem: having an out–of–wedlock child, a sure path to poverty. (This by the way is not blaming the victim. The victim is the child and none of it’s her fault.)

After that bad decision, the woman worked hard to turn her life around. She finally landed a job with the YMCA and found an apartment she could afford on her salary, but she couldn’t save enough for the security deposit.

Management at the Y heard about her problem and instead of asking the towel boys to hold a car wash for her, the Y gave the woman a salary advance and she got the apartment.

In the Cleveland.com story, spokesperson Kory Lundberg defends the company. “This is part of the company’s culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships.” But that is not completely true. It is part of employee culture, not management culture.

According to Lundberg the company has a program called the Associates in Critical Need Trust. Walmart workers can receive grants of up to $1,500.00 to “address hardships they may encounter, including homelessness, serious medical illnesses and major repairs to primary vehicles. Since 2001, grants totaling $80 million have been made.”

Here’s the problem: Walmart takes credit for the charity and the concern, but it’s paid for by payroll deductions from the workers. Walmart needs to stop dunning employees for this money. The corporation should provide all the funding.

That way the company is really buying into Lundberg’s “culture.”

It is simply good business practice for management to demonstrate real concern for the staff. Putting the corporation’s money where the corporate mouthpiece is will go a long way toward blunting future attacks on the company. And that will help everyone — management, employees and stockholders.

Walmart didn’t do as well as expected, so that has caused several other retail outlets to drop their sales and earnings expectations for the upcoming quarter. The result has been at least a little nervousness on Wall Street, and a less-than-rosy view of the U.S. economic recovery.

“There is a certain segment of the population that is faring well in this economy and have seen their net worth rise sharply with stock and housing market gains,” said Ken Perkins, president of Retail Metrics. “Then there is the much larger segment of Americans that are working in low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, that are struggling to make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck. They are not spending beyond necessities.”

In a call with reporters Thursday, Walmart’s chief financial officer, Charles M. Holley Jr., said there was “a general reluctance of customers to spend on discretionary items right now.”

With the holiday shopping season on the horizon, the big question for retailers apparently will be “what do people consider ‘discretionary’ and what do they consider ‘necessities’ as far as holiday purchases are concerned?”

CBS New reported today on the Wal-Mart employees who plan to protest on Black Friday. You can read the whole article but let me just share a few snippets:

Dan Hindman has worked at a Wal-Mart near Los Angeles for four years. The former employee of the month, who makes $9.80 an hour, says he is scheduled to work on Black Friday but does not plan to show up.

“Wal-Mart needs to learn that it’s not fair how they treat us,” Hindman says.

The protesters want minimum hourly pay raised to $13, more full-time work and less-costly health care. Next year, their insurance premiums will jump by as much as 36 percent, as Wal-Mart scales back its contribution.

He says his schedule was cut to 15 hours per week when he joined a group of Wal-Mart employees who favor unionizing. He lost custody of his four-year-old son when he could no longer support him.

“So I lost my son and I’m kind of regretting working for Wal-Mart, but I have to provide, you know?” says an emotional Hindman. “It’s the biggest retailer in the world, and you can’t help me provide for my son? It kills me, dude. It really tears me apart, big time.”

Dude. Seriously? You are blaming Wal-Mart for your woes?

The first time I heard about the Wal-Mart protest I admit to feeling a bit sorry for the guys. After all, they might only get half of Thanksgiving Day off. But, then I remembered, this is nothing new. Wal-Mart and other stores have been turning back their opening time for the Black Friday sales for years. And there is a good reason they do it. People come. Simple enough. But they are also trying to adapt to the internet shoppers, finding a way to bring customers in to their stores while fighting against the ease of online shopping.

When you took the job you knew the store would be open. How is it any different from bank employees knowing they can’t be closed more than three days in a row so they have to be open on the Friday after Thanksgiving? No different from firefighters, policemen, and hospital workers who signed on knowing that their employer was open 24/7. They might have to work an undesirable shift. No different from the guy who works at a 7/11 or Circle K…heck, what about a 24 hour drug store? When you agree to work at these places you do so with the knowledge that there are days you will be scheduled when you’d rather be home. It’s life.

To the second part of your complaint: You think you should be paid more to do an unskilled job? Why? If you want to make more money you can either take a more challenging job that others don’t want or you can go back to school and/or get some training. Nobody says you have to get a college degree, there are many training programs available and even some OJT programs that pay as you learn. Wal-Mart and other department stores should pay what the market will bear. Remember, there are 30 MILLION other people out looking for work. Why should Wal-Mart pay your sorry butt more money just because you don’t think it’s fair?

Every job I’ve had has had a salary range. When I got to the top of the salary I had to make a decision did I want to stay in that position with little chance for increase or did I want to make a change, take supervisory classes or learn a new skill?

Is it Wal-Mart’s fault that you aren’t working enough hours to care for your child? It used to be that single parents often had to work two jobs to take care of themselves and their kids. Sure it’s tough. But good grief, it’s not the store’s fault that you need to make more. Get out there and find a second job. This is real life. Don’t sit there waiting for somebody to come bail you out.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. moved its planned dividend into late December from early January to help its investors avoid a possible jump in taxes on shareholder payouts, which is part of the so-called ‘fiscal cliff.’ In the face of looming cuts scheduled to occur January 1st and the possible ensuing tax rate changes, this decision by the board of Wal-Mart may save its shareholders taxes by paying dividends while the upper four brackets’ rate is at 15%. The expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts would mean a dividend tax increase to 39.6%.

Should Congress and the President manage to negotiate and resolve details of the fiscal cliff conundrum, those who receive dividend payments next year will not be affected. But if tax rate issues are not resolved by the end of December, the Bush era tax cuts will expire and tax rates on investments may increase dramatically. Yahoo Finance reported:

“In light of this uncertainty, the board determined that moving our dividend payment up by a few days to 2012 was in the best interests of our shareholders.”

Oftentimes, the general public think dividends are investment returns only available to the wealthy. Many do not realize their retirement accounts may be invested in the stock market.

The 2012 election is currently in a dead heat. Americans are evenly split with 46% favoring President Obama and 45% favoring Mitt Romney. This current election cycle just crossed the 1 billion dollar mark and 9% of the electorate is still undecided. One of those groups that can tip the balance and could pose a threat to Obama’s re-election bid is the Walmart Moms. Walmart Moms are defined as a group of women who have hit economic hard times, have shopped at a Walmart store in the past month, and are typically young. In fact, 47% of all Walmart Moms have been hit with an “economic speed bump.”

Alex Bratty of Public Opinion Strategies detailed this demographic at Smart Girl Summit this past Friday. They are identified as a swing group with moderate leanings. They voted Democratic in 2008, but decided to takes away the president’s credit card in 2010 and sided with Republicans. They make up 27% of all registered women voters and constitute 14% of the electorate. Needless to say, both camps should be catering to these young moms.

Concerning party identification, they’re almost evenly split 35%-33% Democratic to Republican. Overall, 49% of them want Republicans to control Congress compared to 39% who don’t. This is very different considering that when compared to all women voters, 38% want the GOP to control congress while 45% do not.

Walmart Moms are not fully engaged in the campaign dialogue, but there is an increasing amount of interest in this year’s election.
Compared to 2011 (and our online discussion groups conducted in April this year), these moms seem more interested in the upcoming presidential elections. They are aware that the race is between President Obama and Mitt Romney, and some can describe certain differences between the two candidates. A few in each group have already seen some campaign ads. However, their knowledge tends to be somewhat vague. It is clear they are still not fully engaged and cannot describe the campaigns or the candidates with much detail.

President Obama is more recognizable and familiar to these moms, while Mitt Romney is still largely unknown.As might be expected, these Walmart Moms are more familiar with President Obama and his family than with Mitt Romney. Indeed, both groups tend to know very little about Romney. They know he is a businessman, and some note he is a family man, but most are unable to offer many other specifics.

WALMART MOMS: UNSURE ABOUT BOTH CANDIDATES & UNDECIDED IN THEIR VOTE

Walmart Moms have doubts about both candidates.Although these moms are more familiar with President Obama, some have doubts about his abilities to get the country moving in the right direction. Specifically, some say Obama has not delivered on his 2008 campaign promises, or say he has not done more during his last three years to address the economy. And, there are mixed views on what he has done so far: some give him praise for health care reform, while others view it negatively.As for Romney, some moms perceive him as being out of touch, citing his personal demeanor or wealth as signs of this. Nonetheless, there is some uncertainty around who he is and most moms are just beginning to learn about him, his positions and what he stands for.

Romney’s business background produces different points of view.These Walmart Moms in Richmond and Las Vegas are most likely to describe Mitt Romney as a businessman. Moms in both groups acknowledge the potential benefits of having a president with his experience. Some moms hope his success means he can apply his knowledge and skillset to the country’s economy if elected. One mom said the country “is like a big business.”However, some moms seem to be more worried about Romney’s business background. They mention he has closed factories and say he has cut jobs in the past, making them question how he might approach his term in office if elected.

The families of the candidates are very important as these moms consider their vote.Make no mistake, the family lives of the candidates do matter. One of the first attributes the moms associate with each candidate is being a “good family man.” These moms give kudos to Michelle Obama and her work on healthy eating/living; and Latina Walmart Moms note that they can identify with her as a minority woman. They also appreciate that Obama has daughters and is “surrounded by women.”Mitt Romney is also recognized and praised as being a family man. However, since they know less about him, they also know less about his family at this time, and none are able to talk about his wife and children.

There was a split between those who thought that President Obama had his chance to turn things around and those who hesitated about changing presidents when things were so bad. They were uncertain about having to start all over with change in a different direction. With few notable exceptions, these women did not identify so much with “women’s issues” as they did with “moms’ issues.”

For these women, Mitt Romney’s business background seems to be a double-edged sword: There’s an assumption that as a successful businessman, he brings some expertise to the table when it comes to the economy. But the perception of him being cool and aloof, and the impact of negative ads about his private-equity firm throwing people out of work, raised doubts about his motivations. There were questions about whether he would side with the average American.

Cook concludes, stating:

Many of these women are still window-shopping this election. Clearly, they knew more about Obama. Most had some degree of comfort with him, though they were concerned that he hadn’t been more effective. Romney, though, was a blank slate. These voters know little about him beyond the fact that he has been a wildly successful businessman. But what little they know came mostly from Democratic attack ads. In other words, they’re still listening.

Doing business in the US and Mexico has a number of similarities, although the medium of exchange is sometimes different.

Here’s an outrage: sleazy government officials approach a major business interest and want to enter into “negotiations.” The officials casually mention, “You’ve got a nice little business here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”

Both sides know the business needs permits to operate, current regulations could be changed or delayed and the bureaucracy’s normally glacial pace could begin to approach that of plate tectonics. All it takes is a little ill will on the government side and costs and delays start to escalate for the business side. And there’s no one to complain to for obvious reasons.

The government officials say this doesn’t have to happen. We can all cooperate for “the greater good.” Spend a little money now and it will pay off tenfold in the future. Everybody’s happy. It’s just a cost of doing business in this locale.

Yeah, yeah, you’re thinking: Wal–Mart in Mexico. Old news. The bad guys have already been treed in Bentonville.

But it’s not old news and it’s not in Mexico. It’s how Obamacare was passed in Washington, DC.

The Washington Times reports that internal Obama administration documents just released by House Republicans reveal “those negotiations violated the promises of transparency Mr. Obama made during his 2008 campaign.” Well whoop–tee–do. My question is: why didn’t those “negotiations” violate the law?

Let’s compare the two stories. In “progressive” circles all cultures are relative until a non–union US corporation decides to ‘go native,’ so to speak, and conform to the cultural norms where it’s attempting to do business.

Wal–Mart is now in a heap of trouble for potentially violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Specifically, Wal–Mart is accused of paying “mordida” translated as the “little bite” to local officials. These bribes meant the officials didn’t “lose” paperwork, invent environmental problems or arbitrarily change the rules for building permits in the middle of the process. “Mordida” is a way of life when dealing with officialdom in Mexico, as many US drivers who’ve received a traffic ticket South of the border know from personal experience.

As a result, Wal–Mart’s Mexican division rapidly built stores all across the country and became the fastest growing part of the corporation with one in five stores now located in Mexico lindo.

Now compare that with the Obama administration “negotiations.” The Washington Times reports White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and health care honcho Nancy–Ann DeParle met with major drug company representatives and told them that if the drug companies didn’t publicly support passage of Obamacare, the administration would demand a 15 percent rebate on Medicare drugs and urge Congress remove the tax deduction for consumer advertising. Times reporters estimate this would have cost drug companies $100 billion over the next decade.

This little problem went away, just like Mexican permit difficulties, when drug companies agreed to changes in Medicaid and new fees that would raise $80 billion to offset Obamacare costs. And drug companies also agreed to spend millions of their own money on an ad campaign supporting “healthcare reform.” As a bonus, druggies also got a new captive market and Obama dropped support for importing cheaper Canadian drugs.

Right here you’ve got your quids and your pro quos. In Texas, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a doyen of “progressive” circles, indicted Attorney General Jim Mattox for fund–raising calls that weren’t nearly as blatant as these “negotiations.” Yet it’s business as usual in the capital as Attorney General Eric Holder spends his time attempting a posthumous indictment of Pitchfork Ben Tillman.

Here’s another similarity between the two cases. In Mexico not one government official went public when Wal–Mart money crossed his palm, which is saying something because even in the District of Columbia’s government you can occasionally stumble across an honest man. And of course Wal–Mart paid because that’s how one gets things done in a corrupt environment.

Similarly, not one White House minion felt the least bit unclean about participating in the Obama protection racket and the drug companies paid because that’s how you get things done in a Chicago administration.

Once you get past the general atmosphere of third–world sleaziness, the really insulting fact is the Mexicans got the better deal!

Wal–Mart is the largest employer in Mexico and it is planning to add an additional 23,000 new jobs. Mexican shoppers have new, modern stores with “everyday low prices” and senior citizens asking if you “want a sticker on that” when you enter the store.

On the other hand, US taxpayers are going to get a health care system that will soon resemble Mexico’s along with ballooning Obamacare deficits and fees the drug companies will pass along to them.

Progressive moralizers passed the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act to protect the third–world from its own culture. When are they going to get around to passing a Corrupt Domestic Practices Act to protect us from “negotiations” like this?

Liberal groups like Media Matters for America and its close associate, the Van Jones-run Color of Change, working in coordination with friends of the Obama Administration, launched secondary boycotts against members in ALEC this year; several major ALEC sponsors have already dropped out, prompting ALEC to announce in April that it was no longer going to focus on “public safety and elections,” and would instead direct its energies toward the economy.

These groups have ALEC targeted due to its past support of model bills related to Stand Your Ground laws and Voter ID legislation. Wohl continued in her piece stating that such legislation is opposed by groups like “ColorOfChange, a liberal advocacy group for black Americans,[that] has said the voting laws put the poor and minorities at a disadvantage.” This group was co-founded by Van Jones. The ex-Special Advisor for Green Jobs advisor to the Obama White House who infamously called Republicans “assholes” that led to his premature departure from the administration.

However, this whole notion that it disadvantages the poor and minorities is absurd in the extreme. It always amazes me how liberals seem to think people, who are missing identification for voting, are incapable of going to their local DMV and acquiring a photo ID. It’s only $13.50. Let’s take a look at the process in my home state of Pennsylvania.

Previously, we expressed our concerns about ALEC’s decision to weigh in on issues that stray from its core mission ‘to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets…We feel that the divide between these activities and our purpose as a business has become too wide. To that end, we are suspending our membership in ALEC. Sans, who is also giving up her role as secretary of ALEC’s private enterprise board, did not specify the issues that caused the split. Walmart has benefited from ALEC campaigns involving taxes, commerce and technology. While we are disappointed in Walmart’s decision, we understand the unique pressures they are under, said spokeswoman Kaitlyn Buss.

I guess we can add Walmart to the list of victims of far left badgering.

While CDN is primarily considered to be a political website, I contend that mundane aspects of our culture can sometimes be a part of the equation that get overlooked. One of the issue that’s been on my mind lately is how we treat each other publicly. If the last couple of decades were known for being overly “P.C.”, then I fear this next decade could be the decade of “naked aggression” towards one another.

An act as simple as going grocery shopping has become stressful and unpleasant for many over the last few years. Our fellow motorists on the road have long been a topic of discussion in our country, but now I see hostilities and conflict extending beyond the pavement and the stoplights. Now the grocery store and even the parking lot itself seem to be unsafe havens in our world today.

Last Saturday, I began my (weekly) show, Married to the Game, with observations on what it’s like to go shopping in Southern California. Below, I’ve combined some of that commentary with pictures and video that I took from a Walmart parking lot, both out of frustration and in an attempt to share with other people what I’ve been witnessing. Ultimately, I’d love to get a conversation started in this country about how we can go back to better conducting ourselves and being “better citizens” in public. But until then, you can find entertainment in my pain in this video below.

So what are your thoughts? Am I just crying over misplaced shopping carts? Are there bigger problems in the world? Or is this video indicative of our “EBT” and “OWS” culture?

Also… In the video, I discuss how this has encouraged me to do more shopping online, thus costing local stores my business. As more and more people seem to shop online, what effect do you think this has on our communities?

Let us know in the comments below. (or on Facebook) This is a topic I believe we should all think more about.